SCOTUS signs off on traffic stops solely based on anonymous 911 calls

devil21

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
26,109
Ah yes, the infamous 5-4 ruling in favor of more police powers. "You were so close to keeping your rights....so close. Better luck next time."

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/22/305993180/court-gives-police-new-power-to-rely-on-anonymous-tips

In August 2008, an anonymous 911 caller in California phoned in a report that a pickup truck had run her off the road. The caller gave the location of the incident, plus the make and model of the truck and the license plate number.

Police subsequently pulled over a truck matching that description and smelled marijuana as they were walking toward the vehicle. Officers eventually found 30 pounds of marijuana in the truck and arrested the driver, Jose Prado Navarette.

Navarette challenged the search and arrest as unconstitutional, arguing that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over in the first place because police knew nothing about the identity or reliability of the tipster. more at link
 
Clowns in Gowns.

This goes right here:

A Scallawag’s Circular Reasoning

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/a-scallawags-circular-reasoning/

It’s always amusing — some might say infuriating — when a Gowned Clown muses on the evisceration of our freedom — an evisceration his court enthusiastically pursues. And so last “Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment.” Which is rather like Janet Napolitano and Pillary Clinton’s discussing beefcake: you’re surprised they’ve even heard of it and certainly don’t want to hear their ruminations.

But I digress. “Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution: Justice Antonin Scalia said, ‘No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute.’” Ahem. Yet these are the unconscionable cretins determining how much liberty to allot the serfs. “Please, sir, may we have some more?”

Scallawag continued. “I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that’s a terrible intrusion…”

Whoa! Hold it right there, Cowboy. “Someone can pass his hands all over our bodies” only because you Clowns specifically perverted the Fourth Amendment to allow it!!!!! Since the 1960s, courts have consistently ruled in favor of the State and against the Fourth Amendment on virtually every case regarding aviation’s security that’s crawled before their sorry bench. Quickly but surely, the courts turned passengers into prisoners and an absolute freedom from unreasonable search and seizure into one that depends on what “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (That’s a quote from Katz v. United States [1967], a seminal case about wiretapping a public phone that the Clowns have duly expanded to legalize virtually any assault Our Rulers launch against the Fourth.)

Scallawag resumes once more: ”…but given the danger that [the TSA's sexual molestation is] guarding against it’s not an unreasonable intrusion…” He’s here referring to another decision (United States v. Bell, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972) in which the Clowns declared that because they’re craven wimps, we’ll welcome groping from their jack-booted minions — though of course they didn’t phrase it like that: “When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, that danger alone meets the test of reasonableness.” Ergo, no one can possibly object to any of the TSA’s atrocities.

Ah, but gate-rape is an unreasonable intrusion, Scallawag. You and your fellow Clowns can claim it isn’t from now till Doomsday, but that doesn’t change reality.
 
Anyone notice that the "moderate" "swing" vote seems to gravitate toward tyranny?
 
We have to work very hard for ANY republican to become president in 2016 so we can get more freedom loving conservatives like Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito on SCOTUS :rolleyes:

BTW Do Thomas and Scalia laugh about this rhetoric afterwards:
In a scathing dissent, fellow conservative Scalia called the Thomas opinion a "freedom-destroying cocktail"
Do they flip a coin to see who gets to be the swing voter? Such as when Roberts gave the swing vote for Obama care. It's really sick.
 
Last edited:
"there are very few freedoms that are absolute"

images
 
But I digress. “Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution: Justice Antonin Scalia said, ‘No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute.’”

Ok then.
Follow-up question, Mr. Scalia.
Perhaps you can tell us WHICH freedoms are absolute?
 
BTW Do Thomas and Scalia laugh about this rhetoric afterwards: Do they flip a coin to see who gets to be the swing voter? Such as when Roberts gave the swing vote for Obama care. It's really sick.

This is probably closer to the truth than most would believe. It's not like Thomas wrote the decision any way. His clerks and staff did. It's just his name on the paper.

Sorta like how there's always some Republican congressmen that switch sides to ensure the passing of big government legislation. Who drew the short straw this time? Sucks for you. Best of luck with your re-election. Here's a million bucks from the lobbyists in case it costs you your seat.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
It should be, if they find something that wasn't listed as being searched for on the search warrant, it shouldn't be admissible in court.
 
Not only the 4th but the 6th.

"... and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him,"

Anonymous tips should be disregarded.
 
300 million anonymous tips a day should keep them hut-hutting about rather nicely.

Then Theye will enact legislation to put you into prison for some form of "interference" or other tampering with the ponderous business of the almighty state. The new law will have all the clarity and determinate precision of NDAA, PATRIOT, ACA, and so forth so that any time you fart to Theire displeasure, they will have a codified pretext upon which to "run you in"... or perhaps "through".

My morbid curiosity is reaching my limit of tolerance. I just have to know whether we will allow Themme to go all the way.
 
Then Theye will enact legislation to put you into prison for some form of "interference" or other tampering with the ponderous business of the almighty state. The new law will have all the clarity and determinate precision of NDAA, PATRIOT, ACA, and so forth so that any time you fart to Theire displeasure, they will have a codified pretext upon which to "run you in"... or perhaps "through".

My morbid curiosity is reaching my limit of tolerance. I just have to know whether we will allow Themme to go all the way.

I'm betting yes, especially since pushback is, for all intents and purposes, nil.
 
Just you wait... with technology...

Watch all the 911 "Swatting" coming to a roadway near you.

Washington DC and the DOJ-SCOTUS are laughing at Moron America... they probably go to private parties and make bets on how they can fuck Americans tomorrow. Why not, Americans just bend over and take it up the coat
 
Watch all the 911 "Swatting" coming to a roadway near you.

I've heard this sort of thing is becoming more common -- a new type of "road rage." Somebody cuts you off or something, you can get back at them by calling 911 and saying that they appear to be driving drunk or whatever.

I'm sure the police don't mind it , it's just more job security for them. Even better now that it has the Court's seal of approval. Pull the alleged offender over and find that they are not drunk, then it's time for "do you mind if we search your vehicle? You don't consent? Ok then, we'll just wait here for the K9 unit ... " .
 
Last edited:
They better be able to come up with the anonymous accuser some day when someone actually has a court case where they are actually able to face their accuser.

It's such a crap shoot of that happening we should set up a pool for them to be able to file a law suit. If they've got time for that kind of thing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top